ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The Management of Jamshedpur Workers College Employees Credit Co-operative Society Limited has challenged the writ Court’s decision whereby award dated 28th April 2010 passed in Reference Case No. 16 of 2002 has been affirmed. 2. In Reference Case No. 16 of 2002, the Labour Court at Jamshedpur held that the order of termination of the workman from service was illegal and, accordingly, directed his reinstatement in service with 50% back wages from 11th January 2001 with all consequential benefits. 3. The workman raised a dispute to the order of termination dated 11th January 2001 issued by the Management of Jamshedpur Workers College Employees Credit Co-operative Society Limited (in short, the Management) which was referred for adjudication by the appropriate Government vide notification dated 14th December 2002 in the following terms: “Whether the dismissal of service of Jitendra Kumar Tiwari, Clerk-cum-Accountant, the workman, Jamshedpur Workers College Employees Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Mango, Jamshedpur is legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?” 4. The workman who joined under the Management on 28th April 1987 was confirmed on the post of Accountant-cum-Office Assistant w.e.f 17th April 1990 and the order of his confirmation in service was approved by the Assistant Registrar by an order contained in Letter No. 938 dated 31st December 1994. Before the Tribunal, the workman examined himself and tendered evidence in support of the stand taken by him that the order of termination dated 11th January 2001 was issued in breach of the rules of natural justice. He further set up a claim that even the retrenchment compensation under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was not paid to him and that he never indulged himself in any misconduct or misappropriation of money. The workman produced documentary evidence such as office order dated 31st December 1994 vide Exhibit-W, letter dated 9th March 1998 vide Exhibit-W/1, inquiry report dated 2nd November 2001 vide Exhibit-W/2 and letter dated 27th October 2001 vide Exhibit-W/3. 5. On the other hand, the Management took a position that the performance and conduct of the workman were not satisfactory and his service was dispensed with pursuant to a decision taken in the Annual General Meeting held on 10th January 2001 and retrenchment benefit was offered to him which he refused to accept. 5. On the other hand, the Management took a position that the performance and conduct of the workman were not satisfactory and his service was dispensed with pursuant to a decision taken in the Annual General Meeting held on 10th January 2001 and retrenchment benefit was offered to him which he refused to accept. The Management produced certain documents such as Original Cheque No. 87731 dated 11th January 2001 vide Exhibit-M/1 and letter regarding termination dues dated 11th January 2001 vide Exhibit-M/2, to demonstrate that retrenchment compensation in terms of the provisions under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was calculated and offered to the workman through the aforementioned Cheque No. 87731 dated 11th January 2001. The Management also laid in evidence attested copy of dispatch register vide Exhibit-M/4, passbook of Jamshedpur Workers College Co-operative College Mango Jamshedpur vide Exhibit-M/5, attested copy of cash account for the month vide Exhibit-M/6 and Bye-laws of the Workers College Employees Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Jamshedpur vide Exhibit-M/7. 6. The Labour Court held that the termination order dated 11th January 2001 was illegal for the reason that the Management could not establish any misconduct on the part of the workman. The Labour Court further took note of the inquiry report vide Exhibit-W/2 and held that an inquiry was conducted without affording an opportunity to the workman to defend himself. 7. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Jamshedpur answered the reference in favor of the workman in the following manner: “16. Having regards to the facts and circumstances and upon considerations of material and evidence as discussed above I find and hold that management of Jamshedpur Workers College Employees Credit Co-operative Society Jamshedpur, has not been able to prove the misconduct as committed by the workman Jitendra Kumar Tiwary and also failed to comply the provision of sec.25F of I.D.Act as well as provision of sec.29 (11) of the Bye-Laws of the Society and it makes the termination order not sustainable in the eye of law and as such termination order dated 11.1.2001 Ext. M/3 is liable to be set-aside and it stands set-aside. And issue no. (i) and issue no. (iii), are hereby decided accordingly in favour of the workman and against the management. 17. Issue no.(iv)- Issue no (iv) is related as to what relief / relieves workman is entitled to receive? M/3 is liable to be set-aside and it stands set-aside. And issue no. (i) and issue no. (iii), are hereby decided accordingly in favour of the workman and against the management. 17. Issue no.(iv)- Issue no (iv) is related as to what relief / relieves workman is entitled to receive? In view of the facts and circumstances, material and evidence i.e. oral and documentary as available on the record and findings as arrived on issue no. (i) and issue no. (iii) above, I find and hold that the management have not been able to prove the misconduct committed by the workman and also failed to comply provision of sec.25 of I.D.Act and as such the services of the workman as dispensed with by the management vide Ext.M/3 i.e. termination letter dated 11.1.2001 is neither proper nor justified and workman is entitled to reinstatement in his post alongwith back wages to the extent 50% including other consequential benefits. And workman shall be deemed to be in continuity of his service. As such issue no. (iv) stands decided accordingly in favour of the concerned workman and against the management. 18. In the result, instant reference is hereby answered affirmatively in favour of the workman Jitendra Kumar Tiwary and termination letter vide Ext. M/3 issued by the secretary of Jamshedpur Workers College Employees credit co-operative Society Ltd.; Jamshedpur, is hereby set-aside and the workman Jitendra Kumar Tiwary is reinstated to his post alongwith 50% of back wages from the date 11.1.2001 with all other consequential benefits and he shall be deemed to be in continuity of his service. And the management is directed to reinstate the workman Jitendra Kumar Tiwary and to pay him 50% of back wages including other consequential benefits within 60 days from date of declaration of Award, failing which the management would have to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of Award i.e. from 28.4.2010 till its payment/recovery through process of law. 19. Instant reference is hereby answered accordingly in favour of the workman Jitendra Kumar Tivary and against the management of Jamshedpur Workers College Employees Credit co-operative Society Ltd; Mango Jamshedpur . 20. This is my AWARD.” 8. Notwithstanding the “limited notice” issued on 22nd August 2023, we have heard at length and on the merits of the award also. Mr. 19. Instant reference is hereby answered accordingly in favour of the workman Jitendra Kumar Tivary and against the management of Jamshedpur Workers College Employees Credit co-operative Society Ltd; Mango Jamshedpur . 20. This is my AWARD.” 8. Notwithstanding the “limited notice” issued on 22nd August 2023, we have heard at length and on the merits of the award also. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the award dated 28th April 2010 cannot be sustained in law for a simple reason that the finding of the Labour Court, that the Management could not establish that retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman, is perverse. 9. The writ Court having noticed “Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v. Hindalco Industries Ltd.” (2014) 11 SCC 85 and “Krushna Narayan Wanjari v. Jai Bharti Shikshan Sanstha, Hinganghat through its Secretary & Anr.” (2018) 12 SCC 620 came to a conclusion that the award dated 28th April 2010 does not warrant interference of the writ Court. 10. The writ Court has held as under: “9. Considering other aspects of the matter, it is also well settled that the orders of the Tribunal can only be interfered if there is gross illegality and the order is perverse and without jurisdiction. Nothing has been argued nor brought on record to show that the order passed by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction and is full of illegality and is perverse. This Court, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can only interfere if the aforesaid elements are attracted. In absence of the same, no interference is warranted. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove and for the reasons expressed above, this Court is in full agreement with the Award passed by the Tribunal and as such is not in a position to take a different view what has been taken by the Tribunal. I do not find any infirmity or any illegality in the impugned Award. No interference is warranted by this Court in the impugned Award. 11. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, I find the impugned Award needs no interference. The Award is confirmed and the Management is directed to act as per directions made in the Award dated 28.04.2010, passed in Reference Case No. 16 of 2002. 12. Resultantly, writ petition stands dismissed.” 11. 11. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, I find the impugned Award needs no interference. The Award is confirmed and the Management is directed to act as per directions made in the Award dated 28.04.2010, passed in Reference Case No. 16 of 2002. 12. Resultantly, writ petition stands dismissed.” 11. At this stage, we may point out that this was the case pleaded by the Management before the Labour Court that the service of the workman was dispensed with after complying with the requirements under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Furthermore, it was categorically denied by the Management that the workman was terminated from service on the charge of misconduct. The Management had in fact laid in evidence the documentary evidences vide Exhibits-M/2, M/3 and M/4 to establish that it complied with the provisions under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and offered retrenchment compensation of Rs.43,495/- which was refused by the workman. However, the Labour Court did not accept evidence laid by the Management during the trial in Reference Case No. 16 of 2002 and held that the Management failed to establish that it had complied with the requirements under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. In our opinion, this finding of the Labour Court is plainly against the load of documentary evidence produced by the Management. Even so, grant of back wages to a workman after setting aside the order of termination depends on several factors such as the length of service rendered by the workman, the remaining period of service of the workman, the post on which the workman was rendering service etc. The award dated 28th April 2010 does not disclose any reason as to grant of 50% back wages to the workman w.e.f 11th January 2001 with all consequential benefits. 12. This is well settled a law that non-compliance of the requirement under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act does not result in automatic reinstatement of the workman in service. In “BSNL v. Bhurumal” (2014) 7 SCC 177 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “31. In Deptt. of Telecommunications v. Keshab Deb the Court emphasised that automatic direction for reinstatement of the workman with full back wages is not contemplated. In “BSNL v. Bhurumal” (2014) 7 SCC 177 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “31. In Deptt. of Telecommunications v. Keshab Deb the Court emphasised that automatic direction for reinstatement of the workman with full back wages is not contemplated. He was at best entitled to one month's pay in lieu of one month's notice and wages of 15 days of each completed year of service as envisaged under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He could not have been directed to be regularised in service or granted/given a temporary status. Such a scheme has been held to be unconstitutional by this Court in A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies and State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 32. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that likewise, even when reinstatement was ordered, it does not automatically follow that full back wages should be directed to be paid to the workman. He drew the attention of this Court to Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha and Metropolitan Transport Corpn. v. V. Venkatesan. 33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious. 34. The reasons for denying the relief of reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. It is trite law that when the termination is found to be illegal because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and notice pay as mandatorily required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, even after reinstatement, it is always open to the management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily-wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularisation [see State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)]. Thus when he cannot claim regularisation and he has no right to continue even as a daily-wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.” 13. In this context, we may indicate that there was a hiatus of nine years during which period the workman did not render his services under the Management. This also is bearing in our mind that instead of ordering reinstatement of the workman in service the Labour Court could have issued a direction to the Management to pay retrenchment compensation to him. After all, the Labour Court could not have gone into the subjective satisfaction of the employer as to dispensing with services of the workman by paying him retrenchment compensation under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, particularly, where a specific stand was taken by the Management that the order of termination dated 11th January 2001 is not founded on any misconduct on the part of the workman. It seems to us that Labour Court was swayed away by the expression termination in letter dated 11th January 2001. 14. Now in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the award dated 28th April 2010 is modified to the extent that the workman shall be paid compensation instead of reinstatement in service with back wages. The workman was receiving salary to the tune of Rs.4,792/- at the time when the order dated 11th January 2001 was issued. He would have thus earned salary to the tune of about Rs. 5 Lakh in the next 9 years. The workman was receiving salary to the tune of Rs.4,792/- at the time when the order dated 11th January 2001 was issued. He would have thus earned salary to the tune of about Rs. 5 Lakh in the next 9 years. Therefore, in addition to the retrenchment compensation of Rs. 43,495/-, the respondent shall be paid Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. These payments shall be made by the Management within six weeks. 15. L.P.A No. 288 of 2021 is allowed in the aforesaid terms.